Fanbois froth as Apple claims 'iPhone5.com' rights
Apple has filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Association against the owners of the domain name "iphone5.com", but devotees of the site to which that name links are not giving up without a fight. "Call Corporate Of Apple and tell them to stop there persuit!! Blow up there phones, Spam there emails, call there …
This topic is closed for new posts.
"Call Corporate Of Apple and tell them to stop there persuit!! Blow up there phones, Spam there emails, call there Administration! Do something to get our point across,"
Perhaps learn the correct use of there (it is actually "their" in this case), and how to spell "pursuit" first.
"their"
I send replies to our faithful, hardworking, dedicated webmaster informing him...
"Re: Your email.
You spelled 'their' correctly."
Same thing with 'there', 'your', 'you're', etc.
LOL
As if most of those are real users...
Seems Reg hacks are not up to date on web spam. Love the ton of ads they serve courtesy of Google though.
Re: LOL
"As if most of those are real users..."
If they think that they are going to win, then they *are* real users: real drug users.
Re: LOL
"As if most of those are real users..."
They are real users, whether or not they can be classified as people is another matter....
You must be holding it wrong
Domain naming... "Not that big of a deal."
iphone4
According to sitedossier, iphone4.com used to be on the same DNS servers as iphone5.com (until apple took it away)
http://www.sitedossier.com/nameserver/ns1.smonty.net
Re: iphone4
They also owned iPhone3.com and still own nearly a dozen of iPhone-related domains, all very similar in appearance and content. They then hold another 10 or so domains that are marked "For SALE" (e.g. dacent.com)
Their biggest site is probably iphoners.com.
It's clearly a domain squat operation who hope Apple will pay them off to make the problem go.
Re: iphone4
the problem is they asked for more than their lawyers so its tough titty.
Good to know
the Register has an interest in domain name matters and the UDRP. I have another story.
Less than a month ago Google used the UDRP against a small domain name called gmai.com that was registered in 1991. That's 13 years before Google launched and created their own Gmail service.
However the site traded hands last year, so Google might be in luck as for UDRP purposes it apparently counted as a new registration then.
Re: Good to know
After going to the site I'd have to be on Google's side on that one. They even use Google's fonts and colours.
What a nice lot
From the current site's T&Cs:
"No links linking to competing iPhone websites (links to iPhone forums, iPhone blogs and so on)."
Well, duh.
Maybe I am the exception here, but I think Apple is not the Evil Big Bucks company here.
This is classic domain name squatting - they have just played a long con instead of a short one. The Net is saturated with jerks who register short domain names and pre-emptive product names in the hope of making a quick buck, and personally I wish every single one of them gets a white hot poker where it does the most good.
Personally, any of those domain name borders should be barred from ever owning a single domain ever again, direct or by proxy, but that's hard to enforce.
This time I'm in Apple's corner - they actually have an obligation to protect a brand from dilution..
Re: Well, duh.
I sort of agree.
But can you, in all honesty, lodge a complaint regarding a trademark that you don't actually own or publicly acknowledge?
I refer you to the google story above regarding gmai.com.
Yes, we all *know* that they are a cybersquatter looking to make some moolah, but actually we don't really know because Apple won't admit it.
Re: Well, duh.
>Maybe I am the exception here, but I think Apple is not the Evil Big Bucks company here.
This is classic domain name squatting<
It's not a big deal, just change the name.
The ghost of S. Jobs
Re: Well, duh.
Agreed but it's not like Apple didn't know they were going to make an ithing5 is it.
Why didn't they exercise due diligence over their own trademarks and register 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc way back.
Each side would seem to be as stupid as the other this time.
Re: cybersquatting
Yes, we all *know* that they are a cybersquatter looking to make some moolah, but actually we don't really know because Apple won't admit it.
It's easy. Do a WHOIS on iphone5.com and iphone6.com and you get the same org. All names registered at the same time, all behind a privacy shield. BTW, an accidental mistype showed there's also an iphone78.com out there :).
Re: Well, duh.
Apple doesn't need to do that. What they are doing now is correct - you cannot pre-emptively defend a trademark, you can only act on infringement. Precog is not (yet) allowed in court :)
Re: but it's not like Apple didn't know they were going to make an ithing5 is it.
Yeah, above all good software companies like to keep things consistent so there can be no confusion amongst their customers.
It's not like they named it iPhone 3.1, iPhone 95, iPhone 98, iPhone ME, iPhone NT, iPhone 2000, iPhone XP, iPhone Vista, iPhone 7, iPhone 8 etc...
This is news?
So Apple releases IOS 5.1.1 and "United States District Court Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has granted Apple its requested Motion for Sanctions, penalizing Samsung for refusing to provide evidence in a timely fashion." but El Reg finds neither to be as news worthy as this?
Re: This is news?
Nobody's in the El Reg UK bureau today
http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/uk/early-may-bank-holiday
They're probably all even more drunk than usual by now...
Re: This is news?
US court finds in US companies favour. How exactly does this qualify as news anyway?
Re: This is news?
Also in Apple-related news, the Australian Transport Safety bureau published their report on the iPhone that caught fire aboard an aircraft last November.
(tl;dr; caused by a botched repair by a third party repair centre that left a loose screw inside the phone)
PMSL
I tend to the opinion that most iPhone fanboi types have a screw loose anyhow, so finding a screw loose in one of those devices is just the icing on the cake!
Re: PMSL
The owner was obviously NOT a fanboi since they had the iPhone repaired at an non-authorised centre so I only give your troll a 4/10.
Re: PMSL
Or it could be a fanboi who is still paying off that overpriced piece of junk and can't afford to get it serviced by an authorized (read overpriced) service agent.
as always, Apple will get their own way.
But let's not forget, time was they didn't have a problem making money off someone else's trademark...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/11/cisco_sues_iphone/
So I guess c0cac0la.com, peps1.com, 1bm.com are ok and why should n-i-k-e.com care? These guys are nothing more than squatters.
what about fake brands ?
One visit to iphone5.com and you know you are not on an Apple site.
Rather than stamp their feet about "fake" websites I wish manufacturers would stamp on the makers of fake branded goods.
For example, by lowering the ridiculous prices for genuine Nokia batteries quoted by Nokia's franchised 'care centres' (in our area the local Carphone Warehouse).
I can see both points here. On the one hand, unless you're running a genuine fan site or a business supporting iPhones, or a legitimate business that used the name iPhone before the Apple iPhone came out, or accessories or something like that, then you don't have much business registering a domain like iPhone5.com.
On the other hand, if squatters can preemptively register domains, then I see no reason why Apple can't, and I don't think it's fair that they should, knowing they will probably want the domain in the future, not pay for it and leave it up for grabs for years, and then just stamp their feet and get it when it suits them.
Both sides, best solution is leave it where it is if the site is legitimate and not posing as an Apple website, or take it off them and give it to Apple if it is clearly being used in bad faith.
This topic is closed for new posts.
